The description says all you need to argue about. Adam and Even originated the human genome, along with the potential for mutation [a possible outside influence] of that genome over generations, beginning with Gen 1. Isn't that all in the description?
Don't bother to read the description, which negates your attempts at BoP for #s 1, 2, 3, 4 is a given, and 5 is superfluous. You must accept some assumptions in this debate. I am not arguing any other matter relative to who or what started Homo sapiens. For argument's sake only, we're calling them Adam and Eve. Are you more comfortable with Jack and Jill? IT DOES NOT MATTER. Get over your details and read the description. THAT is the total scope of the debate, regardless of what biology theorizes. I have defined what is needed to be supported by argument, whether biologically accurate, or not. Who can sell the best theory?
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
Not by my observation in my debate with EricT in https://www.debateart.com/debates/2075/resolved-law-enforcement-caused-death-and-injury-to-u-s-citizens-are-not-by-epidemic-proportion
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
RM, welcome to the debate. Thanks for accepting. I did not mention it in description, but I'm not imposing a round waiver. I've specified 3 rounds and we will debate 3 rounds. I find the other an absurd game. I'm not even a sure I would oppose new argument in round 3. I did not mention that either, but in this instance, I'm actually debating with the hope in mind of changing policy relative to the no-vote condition. Any particular thoughts you have on protocol for the debate, I'll entertain them. Best wished for a lively debate
AS RM has accepted the debate, and you did not, we'll let RM determine what may be easiest and by what justifications. This debate was not initiated as a whimsical exercise, but as a serious [to me] issue of the general lack of sufficient voting. I did not mention in description that debates with just one vote are at least 4:1 the number of no votes. That makes the issue a 15% matter. Not sure if I'll entertain the one-vote dilemma. However, to your point, until A.I. can demonstrate a facility with paronomasia, or other literary devices, let alone pure nuance of language, and not just capability of syntax and grammar, I'll opt for a human judge, thanks.
I'm with Oromagi on this one. Example: A restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat menu. How do they stay in business? It's a simple construct: the great majority of people will not eat everything on the menu for the simple reason that they have a finite volume they can consume in one sitting, and the menu is often in excess of most people's allotted volume. They may be able to eat two complete entrees with a typical two sides, plus a bottomless drink, and that suffices. The one or two in a day who can do not bury the restaurant in debt becaise there may actually be more people who frequent such a restaurant than otherwise would, just because of the offer, and their numbers more than compensate for the one or two who actually can consume more than the typical customer.
So, if one is allowed to use more characters/spaces than another, so what? As Oromagi argues, just because it is allowed [30K characters/spaces, for example] does not mean one is compelled to use that quantity. The world has enough limiters and limitations for no purpose other than to impose control. Argue dfor your wn limitations; they're yours.
What good does "bumping do? I'd really like to know. I am lobbying for an end to debates that end with no votes. Why bother doing the research in a debate if no one is willing to review it?
- call me disillusioned.
I respectfully disagree. Crocodile is attempting to parse the subject of the debate, the Green New Deal, into the definitions of the three separate words, when those words, combined, end up equating to issues beyond the environment, let alone his separate definitions. My third round will address a piece of that action.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
About three months downstream from the conclusion of this debate, I reviewed it and noted an interesting commentary that concluded my opponent's 4th and last round:
"So please everyone. remember, this debate was not about whether or not "a God" (intelligent designer) is compatible with the evolution theory. I would actually argue that evolution theory neither proves intelligent design, nor disproves it.
However this debate was about whether or not the Genesis creation texts are compatible with any modern science book. And my opponent has completely failed to even remotely prove this."
I will remind all that the claim that I failed to prove compatibility of Genesis to "any modern science book" is not only a fallacy of interpretation, but a violation of understanding the debate proposal which was, "Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate." My opponent declared that he did not need to argue Darwin, and threw to us, instead, "modern science books." But the debate WAS about "Darwin's evolution" and not modern science. As the proposal defines the parameters of the debate, and it cannot be changed by the whim of either participant, it remains the subject on which the debate is waged.
I will not vote on this debate as I cannot dismiss my utter disdain of exclusive use of wiki as a source. It's not the only game in town. There's a reason why encyclopedia salesman is a dead breed.
I knew that ELO was the ranking in our profiles, but I thought it was an acronym I didn't know the meaning of. No wonder I didn't know. I detest wiki. Reminds me of encyclopedia salesmen. Yes, there was once such a profession.
That's what you get for playing games. You want a 5-round debate, debate 5 rounds and stop this waiving nonsense. You've got an argument; make it!. You initiate, you begin your argument first. Is that so hard? Waive; wave bye-bye to the debate.
There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.
When I initiate a debate, I usually have my first argument ready to post, and the second well in mind if not started. As it happens, they're both composed now, but for anticipated rebuttal. This will be a bloody long debate. Tick
I've already been to bernie.com [ref [11] in first round. It won't be the last, even if Pro abdicates the debate. The pick of Pocawannapotus is a telling sign.
In your vote, you declare wonder of which God is being debated. Hint: Read the debate proposal, "The God of Christianity does not exist." If your vote is as careless as your wonder... Hmmm?
Nope. Omnivore all the way. I have incisors and canines. They're to tear flesh. There is an enzyme in saliva which sole purpose is to begin the digestion of flesh.
I will allege that the "truth" that the earth is flat is "not even close to reaching the truth," yet, it was believed as true. Show me. Show us in your arguments that truth is a human construct because I don't believe that, either. Nor that truth exists only by human language. Going to have to demonstrate that, too.
What is true is true past, present, future. What varies is perception of truth. Example: the world was once perceived flat, but the truth was known far in the distant past by merely climbing a mountain high enough to witness for one's self the arc of the horizon. The truth did not change; merely the perception of it.
With all due respect to my opponent, he has concluded his rounds of argument in the debate, and comments is not where the debate is extended until after voting is concluded, per the site policy indicated below, Under [debates/how it works]
"The post voting
The debate is considered finished and the users are encouraged to discuss it in the comments section."
Guys, the argument by Con is to present a better theory than I propose of a single set of parents, their combined genome, and mutation.
The description says all you need to argue about. Adam and Even originated the human genome, along with the potential for mutation [a possible outside influence] of that genome over generations, beginning with Gen 1. Isn't that all in the description?
Don't bother to read the description, which negates your attempts at BoP for #s 1, 2, 3, 4 is a given, and 5 is superfluous. You must accept some assumptions in this debate. I am not arguing any other matter relative to who or what started Homo sapiens. For argument's sake only, we're calling them Adam and Eve. Are you more comfortable with Jack and Jill? IT DOES NOT MATTER. Get over your details and read the description. THAT is the total scope of the debate, regardless of what biology theorizes. I have defined what is needed to be supported by argument, whether biologically accurate, or not. Who can sell the best theory?
I've heard this one before. As I said in description: Within the scope of the debate, Adam & Eve are accepted as first parents. and God is irrelevant.
Yes, I will vote, but it may take a couple of days to get to it. I remise I will do it.
Then I suppose the clock on the debate counts down, the forfeit of round 4 occurs, and I can enter my conclusion, and done. That's okay by me.
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
Not by my observation in my debate with EricT in https://www.debateart.com/debates/2075/resolved-law-enforcement-caused-death-and-injury-to-u-s-citizens-are-not-by-epidemic-proportion
I may have to abstain voting on your debate.
Thank you so much for voting
Thank you very much for voting
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
RM, welcome to the debate. Thanks for accepting. I did not mention it in description, but I'm not imposing a round waiver. I've specified 3 rounds and we will debate 3 rounds. I find the other an absurd game. I'm not even a sure I would oppose new argument in round 3. I did not mention that either, but in this instance, I'm actually debating with the hope in mind of changing policy relative to the no-vote condition. Any particular thoughts you have on protocol for the debate, I'll entertain them. Best wished for a lively debate
AS RM has accepted the debate, and you did not, we'll let RM determine what may be easiest and by what justifications. This debate was not initiated as a whimsical exercise, but as a serious [to me] issue of the general lack of sufficient voting. I did not mention in description that debates with just one vote are at least 4:1 the number of no votes. That makes the issue a 15% matter. Not sure if I'll entertain the one-vote dilemma. However, to your point, until A.I. can demonstrate a facility with paronomasia, or other literary devices, let alone pure nuance of language, and not just capability of syntax and grammar, I'll opt for a human judge, thanks.
Where is DrSpy? Has not shown up for 2 months. I'm not that interested in shadow boxing, but it appears that is what we have.
I'm with Oromagi on this one. Example: A restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat menu. How do they stay in business? It's a simple construct: the great majority of people will not eat everything on the menu for the simple reason that they have a finite volume they can consume in one sitting, and the menu is often in excess of most people's allotted volume. They may be able to eat two complete entrees with a typical two sides, plus a bottomless drink, and that suffices. The one or two in a day who can do not bury the restaurant in debt becaise there may actually be more people who frequent such a restaurant than otherwise would, just because of the offer, and their numbers more than compensate for the one or two who actually can consume more than the typical customer.
So, if one is allowed to use more characters/spaces than another, so what? As Oromagi argues, just because it is allowed [30K characters/spaces, for example] does not mean one is compelled to use that quantity. The world has enough limiters and limitations for no purpose other than to impose control. Argue dfor your wn limitations; they're yours.
That's too bad. However, we are engaged in a good one, and there will be others.
What good does "bumping do? I'd really like to know. I am lobbying for an end to debates that end with no votes. Why bother doing the research in a debate if no one is willing to review it?
- call me disillusioned.
I respectfully disagree. Crocodile is attempting to parse the subject of the debate, the Green New Deal, into the definitions of the three separate words, when those words, combined, end up equating to issues beyond the environment, let alone his separate definitions. My third round will address a piece of that action.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
I have added to definitions in full description "law enforcement deaths"
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting
About three months downstream from the conclusion of this debate, I reviewed it and noted an interesting commentary that concluded my opponent's 4th and last round:
"So please everyone. remember, this debate was not about whether or not "a God" (intelligent designer) is compatible with the evolution theory. I would actually argue that evolution theory neither proves intelligent design, nor disproves it.
However this debate was about whether or not the Genesis creation texts are compatible with any modern science book. And my opponent has completely failed to even remotely prove this."
I will remind all that the claim that I failed to prove compatibility of Genesis to "any modern science book" is not only a fallacy of interpretation, but a violation of understanding the debate proposal which was, "Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate." My opponent declared that he did not need to argue Darwin, and threw to us, instead, "modern science books." But the debate WAS about "Darwin's evolution" and not modern science. As the proposal defines the parameters of the debate, and it cannot be changed by the whim of either participant, it remains the subject on which the debate is waged.
When I said "Con's argument that perception can be true, using a graphic source..." I meant to say that was Pro's argument, and it fails.
I will not vote on this debate as I cannot dismiss my utter disdain of exclusive use of wiki as a source. It's not the only game in town. There's a reason why encyclopedia salesman is a dead breed.
I knew that ELO was the ranking in our profiles, but I thought it was an acronym I didn't know the meaning of. No wonder I didn't know. I detest wiki. Reminds me of encyclopedia salesmen. Yes, there was once such a profession.
Sorry. What is ELO as related to ranking?
That's what you get for playing games. You want a 5-round debate, debate 5 rounds and stop this waiving nonsense. You've got an argument; make it!. You initiate, you begin your argument first. Is that so hard? Waive; wave bye-bye to the debate.
There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting.
Thanks for voting
When I initiate a debate, I usually have my first argument ready to post, and the second well in mind if not started. As it happens, they're both composed now, but for anticipated rebuttal. This will be a bloody long debate. Tick
I've already been to bernie.com [ref [11] in first round. It won't be the last, even if Pro abdicates the debate. The pick of Pocawannapotus is a telling sign.
I agree with Virtuoso. Thank you.
Thanks for your commentary. At least you had the decency in your vote to mention both participants and you made a sound judgment between us.
Congratulations on winning the debate. Your arguments were well done, and I thoroughly enjoyed debating the subject.
Thank you for your vote.
In your vote, you declare wonder of which God is being debated. Hint: Read the debate proposal, "The God of Christianity does not exist." If your vote is as careless as your wonder... Hmmm?
Nope. Omnivore all the way. I have incisors and canines. They're to tear flesh. There is an enzyme in saliva which sole purpose is to begin the digestion of flesh.
Thanks for voting
thank you for voting
I will allege that the "truth" that the earth is flat is "not even close to reaching the truth," yet, it was believed as true. Show me. Show us in your arguments that truth is a human construct because I don't believe that, either. Nor that truth exists only by human language. Going to have to demonstrate that, too.
What is true is true past, present, future. What varies is perception of truth. Example: the world was once perceived flat, but the truth was known far in the distant past by merely climbing a mountain high enough to witness for one's self the arc of the horizon. The truth did not change; merely the perception of it.
Superb first argument! Well done. I often tell vegans, "You can keep your rice [the cultivated rice paddies emit methane], but leave my steak alone!"
Fair enough. Apology accepted. AS irt happens, I am a writer by profession
With all due respect to my opponent, he has concluded his rounds of argument in the debate, and comments is not where the debate is extended until after voting is concluded, per the site policy indicated below, Under [debates/how it works]
"The post voting
The debate is considered finished and the users are encouraged to discuss it in the comments section."
Not before.
I thought we had a great debate. Wonder why we're not attracting voters? Well if we tie with no voter, that's crumbled cookies.
The don't vote. My voice is what it is. Sorry to offend, but, that's on you.